Talk:2011
We're not seriously going to list a title as "Announced, facetiously" are we?! --8of5 23:50, November 30, 2009 (UTC) :It doesn't belong on the year page, but it should be preserved for a footnote to the novel's page, whenever one is created (presumably once we get a real title). Text saved below.--Emperorkalan 15:19, December 1, 2009 (UTC) : ---- ::Announced, facetiously, as The Taurus Key: A Crystalline Fairy Tale, Founded Upon The Mysteries of the Shedai and the Oppression of Their Servants. It Was Written for Kollotuul, But Others Should Read It. ---- Rise Like Lions Do we have any reason to believe Rise Like Lions will be a TOS novel at this stage? The only thing I'm aware of it at the moment is that it's the next book in the Mirror Universe series, but that could make it any era, unless we know for sure it is TOS? --8of5 20:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC) :No, there is no reason to believe it's TOS. That was just me being lazy copying the entry of The Sorrows of Empire and forgetting to change the series when creating the Rise like Lions entry. I have changed it to the more ambiguous ST --Defcon 07:54, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Declassified date Before anyone wonders where I found the June 2011 date for Declassified, it's from Dayton Ward's livejournal: http://daytonward.livejournal.com/550238.html#cutid1--Defcon 13:49, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :That's great, except, should we be using unofficial sources for information here? Why not stick to the official information? -- Captain MKB 19:40, June 2, 2010 (UTC) Well, it's from the author, that's pretty first hand. Also, I don’t believe Pocket will be having a formal presence at the Shore Leave convention this year, where the big scheduling announcements are normally released; hence the recent arrangements from the new Trek editor at Pocket who has been oking the authors to release information as and when she feel's appropriate. In other words, information being released through the authors is official, just released in a somewhat informal manner. --8of5 19:49, June 2, 2010 (UTC) While we're on it though: I know Michael A. Martin has confirmed the next Romulan War book is in the works, but when did we learn it was a mass market paperback (rather than trade like the first Romulan War book)? --8of5 19:53, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :I disagree, if Pocket isn't making official announcements it means there are no official announcements. It doesn't mean we find other sources for the information. The private writings of the authors don't become official just because we want them to. -- Captain MKB 23:53, June 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Fine, I have put it back under unscheduled. ::By the way there haven't been "official" announcements by Pocket Book staff in a long time, but obviously you think dates put on the Simon & Schuster website by their IT staff who have proven unreliable time and time again are more trustworthy than a post by an author. --Defcon 17:33, June 3, 2010 (UTC) :That's a good point too. Perhaps we should just set up a system of 'classifying' the source of the information so we can continue to add it. Maybe a template that would list a linked information source right after the row defining the upcoming work? That way users wouldn't have to click or scroll to see where the info is coming from, and decide on the reliability of the source themselves, instead of us having to discuss each line item's accuracy...? -- Captain MKB 17:43, June 3, 2010 (UTC) :: So something like this: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/User:Defcon/test_schedule? --Defcon 18:21, June 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Sort of, but i altered the first entry in your test article to reflect what i was describing above. -- Captain MKB 19:15, June 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes makes sense to mention the source, but isn't it redundant to put the word source there since it's already in the headline? One thing I realized when creating the test page: Rough Beasts of Empire actually has a December release date on the S&S site. I kept it in January on the test page, since it was only meant as a basis for discussion, but should we move it to December? ETA: The same is true for Path to Disharmony by the way (January release date on S6S' site instead of February) Defcon 20:43, June 3, 2010 (UTC) (Edited:--Defcon 20:49, June 3, 2010 (UTC)--) ::i'd say go ahead and put them at whatever months you can back up with a source, and yes the extra word is redundant, you could remove it as you work up the final version. -- Captain MKB 22:18, June 3, 2010 (UTC) I'm against listing sources on the year pages, it clutters an already very busy and information heavy page and will ultimately be redundant once the book is released. I suggest we follow our existing model, but speed it up more in line with MA's method, which is to list new titles on this page, with key info, and fully cite the source for all that info on the page for the actual publication. MA already have pages for all the titles listed here that we currently have as red links, and those pages have links to all their sources on MA. Re the month of release: Simon and Schuster and Amazon always list the approximate street date on their sites, which is typically some weeks earlier than the official publication month of the books printed in the front matter of the book (once it’s released). As already explained at the top of the page this listing therefore lists the official publication month, as opposed to an ambiguous unfixed street date. Re the officialness of these announcements: As Defcon noted, there are few to no "official" announcements in the form of press releases and what not. The sources of most of the information on this page at present are the authors, releasing information when they are told they can by their editor. That is official confirmation just, as I said, in a more informal manner. --8of5 00:32, June 4, 2010 (UTC) :I don't see why you're against clarifying the way this data is presented. We mad a mockup that was nowhere near cluttered and streamlined the process to boot. Besides, the entire way we've been going about picking and choosing unpublished sources of information is flawed, we have in the past had people trying to post tons of really questionable data on the basis that they believed their favorite author felt that way on a forum or blog. A positive change would be to add a mechanism to cite this to an actual web source, and have it be readable here without requiring a click to another site unles the reader so chose. I've gotta say, put your problems aside and let some positive change go through. :As to clutter, why are we even using a table here. That's the main cause of the problem, contructing a large confusing grid when a simple list would suffice, with the links i suggested. why not get rid of this whole table idea while we're throwing out bad ideas? -- Captain MKB 01:09, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I have no objection to better citing where the information comes from at all, in fact I support it, just not on this page. Again I suggest you look at MA's set up. They have a concise list of publications on the year/future publication page just as we currently have (albeit not in the table format), while being able to go into extensive detail explaining the history of each title (and all the citations that goes with that) on the individual title pages. That is a far better way to do it than adding more information onto this already crowded page. As I already mentioned this information becomes obsolete once the book is published or newer information comes along, meaning this page will need far more frequent updates and/or the proposed citation column while expand to occupy even more than the disproportionate amount of space the current proposal results in. While on the other hand if all that information is collated on the separate publication pages it never becomes obsolete, but part of the publication history of that title which can be maintained and expanded upon, rather replaced, as new information comes to light. It’s win-win; this page remains a clear and useful look up chart for future publications, while the pages for each of the individual publications can go into extensive detail on the development history of each title. ::As to the table format for this. I first trialled it on the 2010 page in March and sought feedback, none was given. I stand by the reasoning I gave when I initiated that trial; the table format permits more precise information to be given on each title without it becoming a tangled mess of text blocks. It allows the user to easily look up the series, exact media, title (and miniseries), authorship and publisher. In a much clearer way than the previous list of sentences format which meant you had to read quite carefully to find any particular single data point for each entry. --8of5 02:29, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::: Quite frankly, I'm fine with either method (name the source here or on the specific book's page), as long as we have the most up-to-date informations on this site. It would be a shame if Memory Beta doesn't have all relevant data, only because we wait for an official announcement which probably never comes, when there are comments by the authors who are the closest we get to official sources these days it seems. We could put another sentence in the opening text saying that the source for the dates is on the book's page if we go that route. 'ETA:'Re: the table format: I like that format more than the previous text version, so my vote would be in favor of keeping it, no matter what we do regarding the sources. --Defcon 07:13, June 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, here's my feedback: if you are going to use livejournal, myspace, facebook, blogs, youtube instead of simonandschuster.com as sources for the information, cite it like i suggested or do not use the unofficial data. don't use your table as an excuse to get around properly informing the reader of the source of the information. -- Captain MKB 12:50, June 4, 2010 (UTC) :::I've got to say I agree with both Mike and 8of5 here (at least as I understand 8of5's point). I'd say that the dates from unofficial sources can be used on this page and then the source of the date can be cited on the book's page. Additionally, the additional information in the table is also given on the book pages so a simple list of the release dates should be sufficient for the year pages.--Long Live the United Earth 19:35, June 4, 2010 (UTC) Mike it has nothing to do with the table format, whether we kept that formatting or not I would still argue it is an overload of information to add the long complex citations proposed here to what is currently a very useable listing of publications for this year. No one is suggesting we don’t cite this information, everyone who has participated in this discussion agrees that it is something missing and something we should fix. Just not everyone agrees it should be done on this page; it is neither beneficial to the usability of this page nor will it accurately reflect the complex information that makes up these particular citations. If we incorporate these citations into the individual publication pages the history can be a useful resource on that page forever, describing in great accuracy the publication and development history of that title. If we list sources on this page they: #Add a layer of complexity to this simple list that we have managed without just fine until now and will detract from the usefulness of the page by cluttering it. #Will overwhelm the page because many of the titles require multiple sources to accurately reflect where we know everything from. #Even given a generous amount of space as currently proposed they do not fully explain the sources as well as an expanded written passage on each page could. #They ultimately become completely obsolete, as once each title is published it becomes it's own source. This page also doesn’t list the page count, the ISBN, chronology information or show covers. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist and doesn’t mean that we’re somehow misleading our readers, just that there are more appropriate places to note all this information. --8of5 15:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC)